Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> Jiří Procházka wrote:
>>
>> I wonder, when using owl:sameAs or related, to "name" literals to be
>> able to say other useful thing about them in normal triples (datatype,
>> language, etc) does it break OWL DL
> yes it does
>
>> (or any other formalism which is
>> base of some ontology extending RDF semantics)?
>
> Not OWL full
>> Or would it if
>> rdf:sameAs was introduced?
>>
>
> It would still break OWL DL
>> Best,
>> Jiri
>>
> OWL DL is orthogonal to this issue. The OWL DLers already prohibit
> certain RDF - specifically the workaround for not having literal as
> subjects. So they are neutral.
> I reiterate that I agree whole-heartedly with the technical arguments
> for making this change; however the economic case is missing.
Are you referring to the cost of fixing RDF/XML or the cost of
specifying RDF correctly and having RDF/XML as a subset of RDF?
IMHO the economic case (and ethical, technical) is extremely strong when
you look at it on the ten year timeline - pinning all of RDF on the
serialization specific features and limitations of RDF/XML really
hinders progress (now and in the future).
There doesn't need to be any cost here, define RDF properly and separate
from any serialization, define RDF/XML as a subset of it, and let us all
get on and create new and wonderful serializations that will drive
another decade of innovation.
I'm 100% sure that if tooling for N3 was more widely available and the
web of data was N3 powered, we'd be much further down the line - the
proof is already there with the work done at MIT-CSAIL and RPI, fact is
you simply can't do everything needed for a web of data with RDF/XML.
Best,
Nathan